Name: Der Mensch in der Revolte
ISBN: 9783499221934

Georges Schlocker

Fran'cois Bondy

Albert Camus

Der Mensch in der Revolte

juana de arco si estuviera cronicamente online

“un homme qui dit non. Mais s’il refuse, il ne renonce pas: c’est aussi un homme qui dit oui, dès son premier mouvement”

“En face d'une future réalisation de I'idée, la vie humaine peut être tout ou rien. Plus est grand le foi que le calculateur met dans cette réalisation, moins vaut la vie humaine."

n.  littéraire

"The ancients, even though they believed in destiny, believed primarily in nature, in which they participated wholeheartedly. To rebel against nature amounted to rebeling against oneself."

Philosophy, even servile philosophy, has its Waterloos.

True realism means looking at human being standing right in front of you and respecting their life but sacrificing them for a theoretical future is unbridled fantasy.

Political realism, on this level, is nothing but unbridled romanticism, a romanticism of expendiency.

To love is, in a certain way, to kill the perfect man who is going to be born of the revolution.

..., everyone tries to make his life a work of art. We want love to last and we know that it does not last; even if, by some miracle, it were to last a whole lifetime, it would still be incomplete.

But what are we escaping from by means of a novel? From a reality we consider too overwhelming?

Translation by Anthony Bower with a forward by Sir Herbert Read

The Rebel

Some people say Camus' greatest essay is The Myth of Sisyphus, I agree but the moment I read the introduction of The Rebel, I knew this book was going to change my mind. It's a demanding book, dense enough that I'm already planning a second read once I have time.

The Rebel picks up where The Myth of Sisyphus leaves off, when it's about "if the world has no inherent meaning, is it still worth living?" The Rebel ask the same question but turned it outward "if I'm free and the world has no inherent meaning, what stops me from taking someone's else life? If nothing is sacred, is murder or violence of revolution ever justified, especially when it's committed in the name of revolt?"

That question is where the book's central idea starts. What does it actually mean to rebel, though? For Camus, the Rebel is the person who says no to an intolerable condition or a limit that shouldn't be crossed, but the strange thing is that is not purely selfish. The moment I refuse my own degradation, I'm implicitly claiming that some things shouldn't be done to anyone, "I rebel, therefore we exist." Instead of thought proving my own existence, rebellion proves a shared human community.

The part that hit me hardest is that Camus thinks this act of rebellion is right (necessary even) but history keeps corrupting it. As he puts it, "Philosophy, even servile philosophy, has its Waterloo." It's genuinely terrifying to watch how ideas that start as declarations of human freedom get repurposed to build death camps and gulags, how a revolt that begins by saying "this human being should not be harmed" can end up justifying the harm of millions. That's the madness at the centre of the book: revolt against injustice that pursued far enough without limits becomes the injustice.

Camus spends a lot of time in Chapter 3 "Historical Rebellion" to tracing exactly how that corruption happens through Hegel and Nietzsche to show how "God is dead" metaphysics gets absorbed into revolutionary politics until rebellion hardens into ideology. He repeats himself a lot here and he's not always fair to the philosophers he's summarising, I don't think he gives Hegel or Nietzsche's ideas the nuance they deserve, but even flattened out, he wrote the argument clearly. It was the hardest chapter in the book for me, genuinely gave me a headache, but I don't think that's a flaw exactly.

What struck me most though, as someone interested in existentialism, is how this book publicly detonated Camus' friendship with Sartre. That's why I know I'll need to read it again.

Some people say Camus' greatest essay is The Myth of Sisyphus, I agree but the moment I read the introduction of The Rebel, I knew this book was going to change my mind. It's a demanding book, dense enough that I'm already planning a second read once I have time.

The Rebel picks up where The Myth of Sisyphus leaves off, when it's about "if the world has no inherent meaning, is it still worth living?" The Rebel ask the same question but turned it outward "if I'm free and the world has no inherent meaning, what stops me from taking someone's else life? If nothing is sacred, is murder or violence of revolution ever justified, especially when it's committed in the name of revolt?"

That question is where the book's central idea starts. What does it actually mean to rebel, though? For Camus, the Rebel is the person who says no to an intolerable condition or a limit that shouldn't be crossed, but the strange thing is that is not purely selfish. The moment I refuse my own degradation, I'm implicitly claiming that some things shouldn't be done to anyone, "I rebel, therefore we exist." Instead of thought proving my own existence, rebellion proves a shared human community.

The part that hit me hardest is that Camus thinks this act of rebellion is right (necessary even) but history keeps corrupting it. As he puts it, "Philosophy, even servile philosophy, has its Waterloo." It's genuinely terrifying to watch how ideas that start as declarations of human freedom get repurposed to build death camps and gulags, how a revolt that begins by saying "this human being should not be harmed" can end up justifying the harm of millions. That's the madness at the centre of the book: revolt against injustice that pursued far enough without limits becomes the injustice.

Camus spends a lot of time in Chapter 3 "Historical Rebellion" to tracing exactly how that corruption happens through Hegel and Nietzsche to show how "God is dead" metaphysics gets absorbed into revolutionary politics until rebellion hardens into ideology. He repeats himself a lot here and he's not always fair to the philosophers he's summarising, I don't think he gives Hegel or Nietzsche's ideas the nuance they deserve, but even flattened out, he wrote the argument clearly. It was the hardest chapter in the book for me, genuinely gave me a headache, but I don't think that's a flaw exactly.

What struck me most though, as someone interested in existentialism, is how this book publicly detonated Camus' friendship with Sartre. That's why I know I'll need to read it again.

The author traces the ways in which the theories of philosophers such as Rousseau, Hegel and Marx have been misused.

An Essay on Man in Revolt

Öykü

“In the light, the earth remains our first and our last love. Our brothers are breathing under the same sky as we; justice is a living thing. Now is born that strange joy which helps one live and die, and which we shall never again postpone to a later time. On the sorrowing earth it is the unresting thorn, the bitter brew, the harsh wind off the sea, the old and the new dawn. With this joy, through long struggle, we shall remake the soul of our time.”

Der Mensch in der Revolte

Reviews

Highlights